The Play’s The Thing- Queen Anne

Queen Anne by Helen Edmundson

Queen Anne

(Portrait of Queen Anne by Michael Dahl, 1705, Image taken from Wikipedia)

And I’m back!  I’m going to try to do more of this in 2019.

Why I Decided To Read It: I actually learned about Queen Anne (the person, not the play) in my Tudor/Stewart England class in college.  I thought she was fascinating, especially her relationship with Sarah Churchill.  I found this play in an Amazon rabbit hole a while ago and I thought “Awesome, I’m totally interested in this story!”.  I only committed to reading it (though I have been meaning to for a while) after seeing The Favourite.  I was excited to see the film for the same reason I was excited to read this play.  I didn’t care for The Favourite.  While the performances are fantastic, especially Olivia Colman as Queen Anne, there are many things I had difficulty with.  I know historical accuracy wasn’t the filmmakers’ main concern, but it’s unfortunate that most people don’t know about this time period.  So, I wanted to get another view of this story by reading this play.

Summary:  It’s the early 18th Century in England and there is troubling brewing. The Stuart reign is coming to an end. There is a fear that a Catholic upriser is planning in France. The last of the Stuart line, Princess Anne, is shy and easily led by advisors, especially friend Sarah Churchill. Sarah Churchill is vivacious, beautiful, and shrewdly political. Anne and Sarah have differing opinions on politics, but Sarah usually gets her way. When her brother-in-law unexpectedly dies, Anne becomes Queen or England sooner than expected. As decisions have to be made, Queen Anne has to decide to listen to her oldest friends or listen to her own instincts.

Thoughts and Analysis: I liked this play even more than the previous Helen Edmundson play I read, Mary Shelley.

This is what I wanted out of a Queen Anne story. Not only does it cover the relationships between the characters, but it also covers more of what Queen Anne’s reign was like and how it affected her relationships. She wasn’t entirely worthless. During her monarchy, Scotland joined England to become Great Britain.  This was a reign where there wasn’t a lot of difficulty between monarch and parliament (and if you consider most of the Stuart dynasty, that says a lot).  She had her own opinions on matters of state and she eventually grew into her powers as Queen.

This story is about power. It appears in a few different ways. Like any political story, everyone is playing a game for power. Queen Anne should have it, but people use her lack of confidence, her illnesses, and her gender against her. Sarah Churchill, her husband, and their allies constantly jockey for more influence. The fights between the Tories and the Whigs often get ugly. It’s hard not to see the ugliness in the politics of the play in use today. We still have people who insincerely flatter and/or bully their way to the top.  People still present false information as the truth.

The main power struggle is between Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill.  It doesn’t start as a power struggle- both seem content in their roles.  Anne is extremely reliant on Sarah tell her what to do.  However, once Anne suddenly becomes the queen, things change.  Sarah pushes more and more and is around less and less.  Queen Anne sees this as disrespectful and is hurt by this.  Their friendship is broken when Sarah takes a step too far and blackmails her.  In the last moments, a broken, stubborn Sarah gives a defiant monologue.  It seems pathetic in the moment, but Sarah Churchill’s memoirs defined Queen Anne’s reign for hundreds of years.  It wasn’t positive.  Only in the past couple decades are we re-evaluating Queen Anne’s reign.

There are flaws.  I wish Abigail Hill was a bit more a present character.  She’s there and she’s involved, but this is definitely Anne and Sarah’s story.  There is a bit of expository dumping.  Given this isn’t a well-known time period, it’s understandable.  The time between England’s Civil War and the American Revolution is a bit hazy for most people.  It does ruin some of the flow a bit.  Some expository information or commentary is given in song form, which is fun.

Favorite Character:  Queen Anne has the best character arch.  She starts very timid and easily wavered and, honestly, pathetic.  By the end, she is standing for herself. I cannot express how uncommon it is to have this character arch for a woman.  Also, she a plus-sized woman! (Note- I am a plus-sized woman and especially care.)  Sarah Churchill is obviously a showier role- an excellent role- but I appreciated Queen Anne’s arch more.

Should You Read This?:  Sure!  Especially if you’re interested in English history,  history, women-led stories, and women playwrights.  Or if you’ve seen The Favourite and want a different version of the same story.

Final Thoughts: I think this is a great version of a lesser-known story in history.


The Play’s the Thing- Nell Gwynn

Nell Gwynn by Jessica Swale

Nell Gwynn

(image taken from Google)

Why I Decided To Read It: I believe I first heard about this play sometime on the Shakespeare’s Globe social media.  I thought it sounded interesting, but didn’t really think about it again until it came up on my Amazon suggestions.  As I am always down for a comedy, history, or a play written by a woman (or a combination thereof), I decided to go for it. 

Summary:  When bold and flirtatious orange-seller Nell Gwynn steps in to help a struggling actor from being heckled, she never expects to be offered the chance of a lifetime.  Thanks to the newly crowned King Charles II, women are being allowed to perform for the first time on English stages.  Nell is a dynamite actress.  With her wit, beauty, and natural charisma, the audiences fall in love with her, including Charles II.  Given the opportunity to become a royal mistress, Nell must struggle between two very different worlds: the bawdy, whirlwind theatre community and the proper, political court.  Can she juggle her two loves or will it all blow up around her?

Thoughts and Analysis: It’s fascinating to go into the world of Restoration theatre, which I feel tends to get skipped a bit in the greater theatrical narrative, except the French Restoration.  It’s probably because the English Restoration for the most part isn’t that great.  It’s covered in this play that the plays of this era were often adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays (like King Lear with a happy ending) or fairly voyeuristic with the addition of actresses.  The roles women were given weren’t great.  They were often there just to be pretty and add sex appeal.  And, you know, the practice of men paying to watch actresses change happened.  Yikes.

But in this play, Nell Gwynn fights for her voice to her heard.  She wants interesting, funny roles.  She also just wants respect, which makes this play such an interesting mirror to entertainment and media today. At one point, Nell criticizes her company’s playwright for writing a woman who accepts a sub-par marriage proposal.  She tells him women are people too and feel as much as men and have their own desires and needs beyond being married.  After calling Juliet “a noodle”, she suggests Shakespeare’s wife should have a go at writing a play.   This is made all the more powerful knowing a woman wrote this only a few years ago.  It’s less of a “Hahaha, can you believe people during this time believed so little of women?” and more of a “You go girl!…Oh shit, we haven’t really changed much, have we?”.  The plain fact of the matter is that women are still fighting for their voices to be heard in the entertainment industry- not just things like abuses we’ve suffered but also just letting our stories be told.  While more and more women are becoming writers and directors (and sound designers and lighting designers and scenic designers and actors and etc.) it’s still nowhere near equal to men.

I know I’m probably making this play sound much more serious than it actually is.  It’s pretty funny.  There’s quite a bit of dramatic irony in jokes that are about how modern ideas will never work, but it’s not overdone.  The actor who plays the lead women characters before Nell is a special favorite of mine because he’s so actor-y.  All of the characters in the acting troupe are pretty fun overall and if you work in theatre you know all of their types.  There’s also quite a bit of sexual innuendo and just full on sexual humor, but no actual nudity; Restoration theatre wasn’t considered high art at the time and Nell Gwynn grew up in a brothel, so it is understandable.  I’m not offended by it, but if you’re looking to do this for community theatre in a conservative area, probably proceed with caution.  It’s a pretty fair PG-13.

Because it is during Charles II’s reign, some Americans might have some issues understanding the political happenings during this play.  It’s not heavily political and it does give some exposition, but some of the jokes might land a little better with some knowledge of the time period.

Favorite Character: Most of the characters in this play are fascinating and funny, especially the ones in the theatre.  But props have to go to Nell herself.  She is the clear star of the show and a talented, funny actress would have to play her.

Should You Read This?: If you’re interested in theatre history, history in general, or like a fun comedy from a POV you don’t normally get, go for it!

Final Thoughts: I would love to read more plays like this.  It’s funny.  It’s sweet.  And it’s about women’s history in theatre.  I also want to read more stuff by Jessica Swale.

Nothing Better Than A Good Book- I’ll Be Gone in the Dark

I’ll Be Gone in the Dark by Michelle McNamara

I'll Be Gone in the Dark

Why I Decided To Read It: I don’t talk about it often, but I am interested in true crime.  Like many people, it’s hard to articulate why I am fascinated by it, but I am.  Maybe I’m curious on how messed up people can become; I don’t know.

This book has been the talk of true crime junkies since it came out- and well before then because of Michelle McNamara’s quality of work and her death (She died in 2016 from an undiagnosed heart condition).  I have not previously read any of Michelle McNamara’s work, but podcasts I listen to had suggested it.  I am glad I did.

Summary: For over 10 years, California state was subjected to one of the worst attacks in history.  In the mid-to-late 1970s, The East Area Rapist terrorized the Sacramento area through a series of almost 50 burglaries and rapes.  Then in the early-to-mid 1980s, The Original Night Stalker murdered at least 10 people.  It wasn’t until DNA testing became available that these two cases were officially discovered by the work of the same individual, now dubbed The Golden State Killer.  He has never been caught.  In this book, Michelle McNamara examines the facts of this case, interviews law enforcement and armchair detectives working on the case, and works herself to try to find who was responsible for one of the worst attacks in California history. 

Thoughts and Analysis: First of all, I’d like to acknowledge I listened to the audiobook version because I tend to prefer to listen to nonfiction books.  Gabra Zackman did a great job.  However, I wouldn’t encourage you to listen to it late at night because if you’re anything like me, you will get paranoid.

This story is terrifying.  One of my worst fears is someone breaking into my home and then attacking my family.  The crimes covered in this book is all that.  One of the most terrifying pieces is this book is the Golden State Killer is still out there.  As of this writing, we still don’t know who he is.  They have his DNA though.  This case is frustrating because of this.  It’s so close to being solved; one tip could blow it all open.

An interesting part of this book- which is different from a lot of nonfiction true crime books except arguably Anne Rule’s The Stranger Beside Me– is Michelle McNamara acknowledges her obsession with this case.  A lot times crime writers either attempt to not discuss their personal journey during research or they clearly show their obsession without realizing it.  Michelle McNamara openly discusses constantly checking for news while at Hollywood parties with her husband, Patton Oswalt.  Or how she finds herself in a rabbit hole of research all night.  Or how she contacts detectives and fellow at-home sleuths (one of whom is her researcher for this book).

There is a lot of research in this book.  Of course, one should expect a lot of information to wade through in a case with around 50 known rapes and at least 10 murders.  McNamara is extremely thorough, even if she doesn’t cover every event.  Her friend and researcher mention in the third part that after she passed, they went through all of her computer files and papers for this book and there were thousands of things for them to go through.  It makes me wonder what would happen if she hadn’t died early.  Would this case be closer to being solved?

Favorite Character: As this is a nonfiction book, there are no “characters” per se.  I just want to use this opportunity to reiterate how much of a gift Michelle McNamara had.  She writes so beautifully and honestly in a way I can’t describe.  She also comes across as a deeply caring, kind, dedicated person.  I could tell how much this case meant to her as well as how much it bothered her.  She carries so much sympathy and empathy for the victims and the detectives.  She’s also brilliant.  When her friend and researcher discuss finding all the files she had that they had to piece together to finish the book, you see someone who is a natural detective dedicated to this case, even if she isn’t a member of a police force (although many detectives she interviewed and worked with consider her an honorary detective). 

Should You Read This?: Absolutely, unless true crime really freaks you out.  This book gets dark.

Final Thoughts: It’s a terrifying, fascinating book that is worth the read.

The Play’s the Thing- Miss Bennet Christmas at Pemberley

Miss Bennet: Christmas at Pemberley by Lauren Gunderson and Margot Melcon

Regency Christmas

(image taken from Google)

Why I Decided To Read It: Sometimes, we here at The Play’s the Thing (i.e. me) wants to read important works of drama that have an effect on the theatrical world.  Sometimes, it’s just good to read something light and fun.  I like Lauren Gunderson.  I like Pride and Prejudice.  I’ve played Mary Bennet in a community theatre production of Pride and Prejudice and she’s my favorite Bennet sister.  I like Christmas.  What else is there to say?  Other than, yes, I know it’s close to Halloween, but I wanted to read this, dammit. 

Summary:  Set two years after Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, this play follows Mary Bennet’s own personal journey.  After being invited to her sister Elizabeth’s home, the large Pemberley estate, for Christmas, Mary doesn’t expect much.  Being the bookish middle sister, she and her family have resigned Mary to a life of spinisterhood.  Enter Arthur deBourgh- Mr. Darcy’s smart, awkward, and single cousin.  The two share an immediate connection, but will unforeseen circumstances get in the way of their happiness?

Thoughts and Analysis: First of all, I appreciate the authors’ note that they encourage diverse casting.  That is awesome.

This was a cute play.  It goes extremely quick; I read it in under two hours.  Like any Lauren Gunderson play, it’s very funny, which is important in a Jane Austen pastiche.  I feel it was a fair interpretation of where the characters of Pride and Prejudice would be in two years.  It was also contained consistent characterization from the original novel.  I did wonder where Georgiana Darcy was, though.  I liked they acknowledged the lack of Kitty and made a joke out of it.

The only original character was Arthur deBourgh, who is Darcy’s cousin.  Due to Lady Catherine’s death, he has inherited Rosings.  He’s a much more awkward Mr. Darcy, but he’s still likeable.  Like Mary, he’s an intellectual and they make a good match.

What I really appreciated was the characterization of the sisters.  I feel like in many Pride and Prejudice sequels and adaptations, most authors tend to ignore the Bennet sisters’ relationships beyond Jane and Lizzy and sometimes Lydia.  Or at the very least, there often isn’t the full shade of emotions that sisterhood entails between all the sisters.  There is a lot of annoyance, but not a lot of caring.  This play was different.  I really got the sense of sisterhood between the Bennet girls because there was a balance of emotions.  There was snippy-ness, but there was also concern and meddling.

Favorite Character: Please, it was Mary.  She’s funny.  She’s nerdy.  She strives to know her place in the world.  I totally related to her. 

Should You Read This?: If you like Jane Austen, it’s worth a shot. 

Final Thoughts: Miss Bennet is a cute, fun romantic comedy that makes a light read.

The Play’s The Thing- M. Butterfly

M Butterfly

(Image taken from Google)

M. Butterfly by David Henry Hwang

Why I Decided To Read It: One of the things I have been doing with this project is read plays that are not by white cis-hetero men.  Because so much of canonical theatre (and most forms of art and media) is done by these men, I think it’s important to find other people’s point of view.  As a society, we need to make an effort to understand everyone’s point of view for a multitude of reasons.  I remembered David Henry Hwang mentioned when discussing modern theatre in one of my college classes, but we ultimately didn’t read one of his plays.  However, I put him and specifically M. Butterfly in the back of my mind because I enjoy modern retellings or deconstructions of popular myths or pieces of media.  I eventually fond the play at my local Half-Price Books (incidentally the same trip I found and bought Intimate Apparel) and decided to get it.

Summary:  Stuckin a jail cell in 1988, French diplomat to China Rene Gallimard begins reliving his actions leading him to his current situation.  Beginning in 1960, Gallimard vividly retells the tale of meeting his “ideal woman”, Chinese opera singer Song Liling.  Gallimard considers Song his own Madame Butterfly- beautiful, submissive, and conservative yet sexual.  They embark on a twenty year relationship where Gallimard passes his lover government secrets.  But Song is not all that “she” seems.  Song is actually a male Chinese spy feeding Gallimard’s sexist and racist desires to get information.  So caught up in his fantasy, Gallimard has problems acknowledging the truth went it comes out.  This psychologically deep play discusses what is love and examines the power fantasies that is so ingrained in Western culture.

Thoughts and Analysis: There is just so much to unpack for this play. There is of course the discussions of sexism and racism that is the main crux of the play.  There is also its place in the theatrical canon, its relevancy today, and how companies choose to market the play.  I would personally loved to have the opportunity to talk about this in a class because there is a lot to discuss.

It’s kind of amazing- in the horrifying way- how relevant this play still is today.  Until I looked it up, I had no idea the play is being revived on Broadway right now, which seems fitting.  It was written 30 years ago, but it still seems fresh because the racism and sexism still applies.  Hwang masterfully dismantles how problematic many people in the West view Asian women: that they’re submissive and modest but sexy.  It’s very much a power fantasy.  You still see it today with white guys fetishizing Asian women through anime and other forms of media.  It’s sexist because it’s denying women’s equality to men and it’s racist because it enforces ugly stereotypes that Asian people are weak and easy to dominate.  This play calls that behavior out by deconstructing the opera Madame Butterfly.  Gallimard is obsessed with the opera and Song uses that information to inform his actions.  At times, I found myself rolling my eyes at some of what Gallimard was saying, but I think that’s the point.

I think M. Butterfly deserves a place in the larger theatrical canon for a number of reasons.  First of all, it’s just a brilliant play.   It’s well-written and thought out.  As it is written by an Asian-American, it’s not a point-of-view we often get in theatre.  It also marks a point in a change in American theatre.  At this point in the 80s and into the 90s, we see a definite shift from realism or the avant-garde to a blend of the two.  There’s a bit of realism, Brechtian techniques, and a sort of magical realism in here.  This trend continues into the modern day.

There’s so much more worth discussing in this play, but I don’t have the space here to cover it all.  What I do want to discuss is the marketing some companies do in promoting this play.  I probably wouldn’t discuss this if I hadn’t watched some of the Broadway commercials.  They don’t advertise who is playing Song and they emphasize the love story aspect of the play.  I watched the trailer for the film version and it’s similar.  I think it’s fascinating that the advertise on the stereotype and then subvert it in the play itself.  I don’t know if it’s good or bad, but it’s interesting.  I guess it depends if it’s intentional.

Favorite Character: Song is such an interesting character because there are so many motivations that we don’t know.  They have to be decided by the actor and director.

Should You Read This?: Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  It’s fascinating and covers issues that do not get enough discussion.

Final Thoughts: M. Butterfly is a modern classic that is worth the read.


Nothing Better Than a Good Book- Persuasion

Persuasion by Jane Austen

Persuasion Illustration

(image taken from google)

Before I get down to the nitty-gritty, I just wanted to say this is my first book review post.  It will be just like my play reviews, but about books!

Why I Decided To Read It: If you have read any of my play reviews, I think you have already gathered that I am A) an Anglophile and B) a lover of woman-centered/woman-written stories.  And what combines the two better than Jane Austen?  I’ve had a goal of reading all of Jane Austen’s works for a few years now, but have only read Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility (and watched the Emma 2009 miniseries but that doesn’t really count).  I’m not exactly sure what led me to Persuasion before everything else except hearing it’s many Austenites’ favorite.  That, and that it’s the shortest of the regular, finished novels.

Summary: Anne Elliot is lonely.  Her mother has been long dead, her father and her elder sister care about nothing but their status, and her younger sister only requires her when she wants attention.  Now 27 years-old, living during the Napoleonic War, Anne is facing spinsterhood at an alarming rate.  This wasn’t always the case.  At 19, she fell in love with a dashing, but poor, naval officer, Fredrick Wentworth.  But thanks to the persuasion of family and friends, she broke off their engagement.  Thanks to unforeseen circumstances, a promoted, newly wealthy Captain Wentworth comes back into her life.  Will they rekindle their romance?  Or is the spark gone forever?

Thoughts and Analysis: I’m going to start by saying this: there is a lot to admire about this book and while I enjoyed it a lot, I am slightly disappointed it isn’t my favorite Jane Austen book.  I know that is an odd thing to bring up, but after hearing that it is a favorite of many Jane Austen fans, I thought I would like it more than I did.  I think my personal problem with it is that I don’t have enough life experience to relate to Anne Elliot’s situation with Captain Wentworth.  Whereas, with Sense and Sensibility, my favorite Austen novel, I especially relate to Elinor Dashwood for a lot of different reasons. That is not a fault of the novel’s or myself.  It just is what it is.   There is plenty to admire and relate to in this novel anyway.

I feel like this is a more honest account of Jane Austen’s personal experience.  This was her last finished work.  It definitely comes from a more mature standpoint.  I know there is some debate in academia over how autobiographical this novel is as Jane Austen never married.  Whether or not she felt longing over a lost love, we will probably never know.  I personally believe the autobiographical things are smaller.  Anne always playing the piano for others would be one of them.  Another thing that feels honest is Anne’s feelings on going unnoticed and living between family members.  Biographers do note she did move between family members and it wouldn’t surprise me if her emotions got put into the novel.

Like other Jane Austen novels, Persuasion contains a fair bit of humor.  It contains the biggest Jane Austen diss of any minor character: Richard Musgrove.  Though due to the change in language, it seems like a bigger insult than her intention.  Regardless, it’s amazing.  There is plenty of mockery of the upper class, especially because Anne’s father is a baronet.  Sir Elliot is by far the worst parent of any Jane Austen heroine (as far as I have gotten).  Say what you will about Mrs. Bennet, but at least most of her awfulness does come a place of caring about her children.  Sir Elliot is not like that.  He’s vain, petty, and status-obsessed.  He also just doesn’t care about Anne.  Elizabeth Elliot, Anne’s older sister, is similar to her father.  Seeing them mocked is great because they are so awful.  Mary Musgrove, Anne’s younger sister, is a hypocritical mess of a person and its wonderful. Being a Jane Austen novel, there is a lot of hypocritical humor everywhere.

If you like angst and longing, is this novel for you.  We do not get the “getting to know you” courting between Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth like we do between other Austen heroines and heroes.  They know each other extremely well.  What we do get is a lot of “How does he feel about me now?”, “I still love him”, “I really don’t like him flirting with other women”, “Does he still love me?”, etc.  It’s really well-written and sometimes heart-breaking, but sometimes I wanted to shake the both of them, like “You two are still clearly in love.  Just kiss each other already”.  Also, Wentworth’s letter is a beautiful piece of literature.

I think my complaint is mainly that it is short, which creates some problems.  Some events and reveals get a little rushed.  If it was a bit longer, some of these things probably would have gotten a bit more set up and breathing time.  I wouldn’t say it is a huge problem though.  It didn’t ruin the book for me; it was just a slight annoyance.

Favorite Character: Don’t get me wrong, I like Anne Elliot a lot, but I kind of love her sister, Mary.  She’s just so ridiculous.  Like, if I met her in person, I’d hate her, but she’s such a fun character.  She’s like Mary and Kitty Bennet wrapped into one person.

Should You Read This?: If you enjoyed any of Jane Austen’s previous works, I think you’d enjoy this one.  Also, if you’re interested in the Regency era, a look into the life of an nontraditional romantic heroine (ie not like a Lizzy Bennet, but like an older Elinor Dashwood), slow-burn pining, etc., I think it’s worth a read.  I’m not sure if a person who isn’t interested in those types of things will get much out of it though.

Final Thoughts: Overall, I liked it, but less than I thought I would (but my hopes were set kind of high).  If you’re a fan of Jane Austen’s previous works, its worth a read.

The Play’s the Thing- Intimate Apparel

Intimate Apparel

(image taken from

Intimate Apparel by Lynn Nottage

Why I Decided To Read It: I have been wanting to read this play for a while.  In one of my college classes, we had to pitch plays to read as a class and one of my classmates suggested this play.  I thought we should have read it then to have some diversity in our class’s canon.  Besides, I knew Lynn Nottage was a fairly popular name in modern theatre and this is probably her most well-known piece.  And I like historical fashion.  But it lost.  This play got put on my Amazon Wish List with about seventy other plays I have yet to put the money down to order.  However, I recently found it at my local Half Price Books and decided it was fate, so I bought it.

Summary: It’s 1905 and Esther Mills is just going through the daily motions.  As an African-American seamstress, Esther spends her days sewing corsets and other lingerie for clients of all backgrounds in New York City while dreaming of owning her own beauty parlor.  The only interactions she has are with her fellow boarding house dwellers, her clients, and the man that sells her fabric (with who she shares an undeniable attraction).  When letters start arriving from a Panama Canal builder, Esther gets her first real shot of a romantic relationship, but things are not all that they seem.  Will she find love?  Or will she find herself? Or both?

Thoughts and Analysis: I enjoyed this play.  (Surprise, I liked a feminist piece of media) It reminded me a bit of the plays In the Next Room and The Heiress and the novel Plum Bun by Jessie Redmon Fauset for different reasons.  It shares discussion of women’s issues in the turn of the century with In the Next Room, struggles with spinsterhood and suitors with The Heiress, and being an African-American woman living in NYC with Plum Bun.  These pieces of media themselves are not connected in any way with exception that they are written by (or in the case of The Heiress, co-written) women and all heavily feature the theme of loneliness.  Intimate Apparel also heavily discusses loneliness.

The title of the play is very accurate.  Not only is the main seamstress of women’s undergarments, but each character has a different way they handle intimacy.  Everyone has his or own emotional apparel.  Thanks to early 20th Century society being what it is, certain characters cannot be as close as what they want to be.  If they act on that desire, there is a definite cost.  It is a very honest view of the struggles in 20th Century America that we as an audience do not usually get to see- mainly because we see it in a white heterosexual male lens.  It discusses interracial relationships, women’s sexuality, and immigration.

A facet I really enjoyed about this play is the use of language.  Each character has her or his distinct voice thanks to his or her class, race, and place of origin.  Esther, an African-American woman originally from the South, sounds different from Mr. Marks, an Orthodox Jewish immigrant.  There is even a difference between how George’s letters sound and how George actually speaks once he moves to New York (and for good reason).

I think my main complaint is that act two goes a little fast.  Maybe it seems like that because act one contains a fair amount of exposition awhile act two is mainly moving plot.  Overall, it isn’t too much of a problem.

Favorite Character: While all the characters are great, Esther is probably my favorite.  She’s shy, but she’s stubborn.  She wants independence but also wants romance.  She’s extremely multidimensional and she’s great. 

Should You Read This?: If you have an interest in turn-of-the-20th Century history, feminism, historical fashion, discussion of race in America, or romance, you should read this. 

Final Thoughts: I think this should be added to the theatrical canon.  It is a great example of modern theatre. 

Also, if anyone has any suggestions for plays, especially comedic plays, I would love to hear them.